‘Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone’ works ... well enough

I was very late to the “Harry Potter” party. I saw the first film at the Peerless Theatre and wasn’t a huge fan. I thought some of it worked, but most of the performances from the child actors were not great (but honestly how great can 10-year-olds be in their first film roles?). I didn’t think much of the series after that until I was in college and my roommate invited me to see the third film in the franchise, “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.” I asked if I needed to review the first two films to know what was going on, then promptly fell asleep watching the second. Not a great sign.

However, not too long into “Prisoner,” I was hooked, trying to solve the mystery and falling in love with the characters. Not too long after, I went to a thrift store and picked up “Sorcerer’s Stone” and “Chamber of Secrets” (book 2) for $1 each. There was no turning back.

Watching the film after reading the books, I gained a better appreciation for what director Chris Columbus and screenwriter Steve Kloves were attempting to create based on JK Rowling’s best-selling novel. Their pretty faithful adaptation holds up with the book, but for someone who hasn’t read it, they might not see its true merits.

For the three of you who haven’t read or seen anything Harry Potter, it’s the story of the aforementioned boy (played by Daniel Radcliffe) learning on his 11th birthday that he is a wizard and has been invited to attend Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. There he learns he’s not just a wizard, he’s The Boy Who Lived. His parents were murdered by an evil wizard called Voldemort but he survived, and no one is quite sure how. He bears a lightning bolt-shaped scar on his forehead where the killing curse backfired and destroyed Voldemort.

The full article is available in our e-Edition. Click here to subscribe.